Hi Keith,
Â
If you,ll forgive for me asking for more, you *still* have not answered my questions directly. It is difficult for me to fathom your reasons for this, however, as you might have noticed, I wrote a very long post in another thread titled <The Defeat of Keith Miller,s View of MN = Science>. That is the appropriateÂ thread to discuss these things now because I already addressed your points below in that thread (so I am responding to you under that title).
Â
What did you mean specifically by <non-natural agents>? I,ll remind you thatÂ your words appear in a published work. Can you notÂ explainÂ it now? I need something concrete, not just an appeal to immaterial things. The termsÂ <natural> and <material> are *not* synonymous; neither are <non-natural> and <immaterial>. Or is this exactly what you wish to contend? You hint at things, in a round about way, but do not say directly.
Â
Randy Isaac is forthright in his recent post when speaking about <metaphysical teleology,> where he identifies <angels, demons, spirits, or God>. Why aren,t you willing to be as forthright in answering my question about <non-natural agents that are not at the same time supernatural agents>? You still have not named a <non-natural agent>, but instead shift your definitional burden onto another concept, either <supernatural agent> or <immaterial agent> thinking this is satisfactory. It isn,t.Â Is <non-natural agent> actually an empty term to you, Keith?
Â
You wrote: <Natural science cannot study the existence or action of any immaterial agent (whether God, angels, or souls).>
Â
Well, I am pleased that you are nowÂ speaking ofÂ <natural science> and not *just* ofÂ <science> in general, as a single, unified whole.Â Shall I take it then that you do concede my point about MN?
Â
Are you equating <immaterial agent> with <non-natural agent>? If so, this would partly explain your position, but would still require a correction in your published words.
Â
It seems to me you have two options, Keith. 1) You can say that when you wrote <non-natural agents> you didn,t actually have anything specific in mind other than <surpernatural agents.> That is, in your opinion and choice of language, <non-natural agent>Â is synonymous with <supernatural agent> and/or it is synonymous with the new duoÂ that just now appeared,Â <immaterial agent.>Â In other words,Â <non-natural agent>Â is a superfluous or empty term.
Â
2) You can maintain your intellectual honestyÂ by admitting openly that MN is *not* aÂ suitable definition forÂ doing *all* sciences, but strictlyÂ for doing <natural sciences.> In other words, <natural sciences> are <naturalistic> by definition (whether or not people want to engage in horseplay aboutÂ methodological and/vs. metaphysical).Â This doesn,t mean, of course,Â that <non-natural agents which are neither supernatural nor immaterial agents> cannot be part of one,s definition of <doing science>, which involves <using methods>. In other words, Keith, you could open a door that is currently closed by your exclusivistic and hegemonic grammar,Â byÂ accepting thatÂ <science can study more than *just* natural things.>
Â
It shouldn't be so hard to eat your humble pie with one or both of these two options, Keith.
Â
Sunday regards,
Gregory

p.s. aren,t you glad that my dissertation pre-defense got pushed back to late-June so that I could have time to call you out and catch you on this, Keith?
Â

I am tired of the charge that I have not answered the question of my view of non-natural agents. Â I have in the only manner that I can. Â

Below I a passage from one response from a month ago or so. Â

Non-natural agents or entities are those that are immaterial (not matter or energy). Â As such, science has no way of investigating HOW such agents interact with the material world. Â Scripture does not seem to give much direction either -- its emphasis is on God's PURPOSES and WILL and the REVELATION of God's character. Â So, my answer to HOW the supernatural interacts with the natural or material universe is -- I have absolutely no idea, and have no idea how I could ever know. Â It does not seem that the question is one that God has seen to be of importance for us to know. Â I suspect that it would be incomprehensible to us at any rate.

The other post I did not archive. Â But in it I stated that if one take a dualistic view of human nature, then the soul or immaterial spirit is also non-natural. Â We cannot therefore investigate the nature of such a soul or spirit through the natural sciences. Â We cannot demonstrate its existence or the nature of its action from within science. Â However, human are also natural agents and as natural agents, human actions can be, and of course are, studied through the natural sciences.